59
Section 2:
Manuscripts
60
Article 1:
Psychosocial well-being of families from diverse
cultures in a South African context
For publication in
61
Guidelines to authors: The Journal of Marriage and Family
(A modified American Psychological Association style; all page references are to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed., 2010.)
Manuscript Preparation
Use 12-pt type Times New Roman and double space (and no more than double space) everything: abstract, text (including indented quotations), headings, references, and tables.. Do not use boldface or ALL CAPS. (Italicize rather than boldface level 2 and 3 headings.)
Manuscripts should be limited to 30-35 pages total, including title page (p. 1), abstract (p. 2), text, references, tables, figures, and any appendices. Use 1-inch (2.54 cm) margins at the top, bottom, left, and right of every page (p. 229). Use left justification in the text (i.e., the right edge is ragged).
Number pages, beginning with the title page, in the upper-right-hand corner. Title length is < 12 words, abstracts < 150 words. Include the N and the data
source in the abstract. Include a running head (i.e., short title) of < 50 characters and spaces (if accepted, the running ahead will appear at the top of every other page of the published article). Place the running head at the top of the first page (not in the header). The running head for a comment or reply should specify that it is a comment or reply.
Below the abstract, list up to six key words, in alphabetical order, by which a published article may be indexed. Choose key words from JMF's ScholarOne website.
Major headings: Method (no s), Results or Findings, Discussion, and References; no heading for introduction. The highest level of heading prior to Method should be a major heading.
Except for author acknowledgements, JMF publishes neither footnotes nor endnotes. Please incorporate any essential material into the text.
Method and Data
The background needs to justify all variables, including control variables.
In the Method section, specify when, where, and how data were collected. Provide both n and (%) of cases deleted due to each sample inclusion (or exclusion) criterion, attrition, or missing data. For interview-based studies, describe
questions that were asked. Delineate how data were analyzed. It is insufficient to say simply that a quantitative or qualitative software program was employed. In qualitative studies, as well as studies relying on content analysis, all phases of coding should be spelled out and related to the goals of the project.
Analyses (or other information) that are not essential to the printed article, but that may be of interest to readers can be submitted as appendices and published in the online version of the article on Wiley Interscience. Supporting material such as additional tables or expanded reference lists should be prepared as appendices and authors should indicate in the manuscript that they intend for this material to be
62
published as online supporting material. Author guidelines on how to prepare supporting material, including acceptable formats and file sizes, are available at http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/suppmat.asp
Brief Reports
Brief reports or research notes appear in JMF alongside other articles on related topics; they are distinguishable only by their length. In brief reports, the background presents a brief description of the theoretical framework and prepares the reader for the sample, the measures, and the analytic strategy. It includes a succinct review of only the literature directly relevant to these points. Readers should get to the method by page 5 or 6 (title page is p. 1, abstract is p. 2). The method and results sections are not much different from a full-length manuscript. Rather than a discussion, however, research notes have a
conclusion summarizing the major findings. Limitations, of course, are included. The manuscript ends with a brief statement of the study's contribution. Generally, the conclusion runs around 3 pages. The reference list should not exceed 4 pages.
Numbers and Statistics
Use figures, not words, for dates; ages; sample, subsample, or population size; exact sums of money; numbers that represent time; and scores and points on a scale. (See pp. 111 - 114.)
In text and tables, treat numbers as you would treat words. Type all operators (e.g., <, =) with a space before and after. Use numerals for all numbers 10 and above and when comparing to numbers 10 or above (e.g., 12, 11, and 6 months). Number over 999 (other than page numbers) should include commas (e.g., N=3,850; p. 1211).
One fifth (noun) versus one-fifth (adjective).
Italicize scoring systems (tables, too) as follows, 1 = yes, 5 = strongly agree, 1 = no effect.
Greek letters are set in regular type; statistical symbols in italic type, and symbols for matrices and vectors in boldface type. (See pp. 118-119.)
Expand all statistical or technical terms on first use (e.g., goodness of fit, GFI thereafter). See common statistical abbreviations and symbols in Table 3.9 (pp. 119-123).
Italicize statistical symbols in text and tables (e.g., F, Fs, SD, M, N, n, p, r, R2, t). Use symbols (e.g., 29% not 29 percent or twenty-nine percent; α not Cronbach's alpha).
Capitalize Model 1, Table 2, Hypothesis 3, Wave 1, Figure 1, Column 2, Level 1, and so on.
Use N for the total sample and n for any and all subsamples (tables, too). Note the italics.
63
In tables and text, use zero before a decimal point in a number less than 1 if a statistic could exceed 1. Do not use a zero before a decimal point where a statistic could not exceed 1. (See pp. 113-114.) Examples of statistics that cannot exceed 1 are: a, B, p, and correlation coefficients. Examples of statistics that can exceed 1 are: b, CI, df, eb, effect sizes, %, OR, SD, and SE.
General and APA-specific Grammar and Usage Rules General:
Strive for economy of expression.
Use while and since only in reference to time (alternatives: although, whereas, but, because).
JMF follows Strunk and White in not beginning a sentence with however, which usually means "in whatever way" or "to whatever extent." Often nevertheless or but is a good substitute for however.
Include a comma before and in a series (e.g., red, blue, and yellow). Use commas (not semicolons) in a series unless an element within the series contains commas: Flags were blue, red, and yellow; lavender, white, and apricot; or orange, green, and black.
Generally, close quotation marks after periods and commas, "like this." Other punctuation marks are within quotations only when they are part of the quoted material. (See pp. 91-92.)
Use which for information that is parenthetical in nature and set off this material with commas; for information essential to the meaning of the sentence, use that (e.g., the table, which appears in Appendix A; a variable that is measured). (See p.83.)
The word data is plural. See p. 96 for plurals of common words of Latin or Greek origin.
Use e.g., i.e., etc., and vs. in parentheses only. Otherwise, use for example, that is, etcetera, and versus. Follow e.g. and i.e. with commas (e.g., i.e.,).
Ellipses require spaces before and after each period, like this: . . ., not ...Ellipses may also need to include an ending period before or after the ellipses.
APA-specific:
Expand all acronyms on first use, no matter how commonly used (e.g., Dyadic Adjustment Scale, DAS). Abbreviate only terms commonly used in JMF, not EST. (See pp. 106 - 107.)
The following prefixes should not require a hyphen: after, anti, bi, co, counter, equi, extra, infra, inter, intra, macro, mega, meta (but meta-analysis), micro, mid, mini, multi, non, over, post, pre, pro, pseudo, re, semi, socio, sub, super, supra, ultra, un, and under. Retain hyphens before a numeral, an all-caps abbreviation (pre-TANF), and a capitalized letter (e.g., non-Hispanic). Retain hyphens if word could be misunderstood or misread (e.g., re-pair, anti-intellectual). Hyphenate all self words. (See the table on p. 98 for more instructions concerning gyphenation.)
64
Commonly used nouns: caregiving, childbearing, child care, child rearing, database, data set, e-mail, fixed effects, life course, long-standing, pooled time series, random effects, website.
Hyphenate compound adjectives when they modify nouns; for example, middle-class families but families in the middle middle-class. Terms for race and ethnicity do not include hyphens (e.g., African American families). Well-being is always
hyphenated. Use an en dash between two units of equal weight (e.g., parent-child relationships).
Emphasis and irony are best conveyed with words; do not use italics for emphasis. (For more information, see pp. 105-106). Use quotation marks for in-text
quotations of fewer than 40 words and to indicate ironic comments or invented expressions (e.g., the division of labor is "fair"), not for emphasis. Quotation marks around ironic expressions are dropped after the first occurrence. Italicize new, technical, or key terms or labels but only at first occurrence.
Italicize words used as words (e.g., "Often nevertheless or but is a good substitute for however.")
Avoid one-sentence paragraphs. Avoid contractions. Review the literature in the past tense.
Use letters, not numbers, in parentheses for a series: (a) first, (b) second, and (c) third; not (1), (2), (3); nor 1), 2), 3); nor a), b), c).
Capitalize the first word after a colon if it begins a complete sentence. Capitalize both words when a capitalized word is a hyphenated compound.
Capitalize racial groups: Black, White, non-White, Mexican American, European American.
Use female or male only as adjectives; girls or women, boys or men as nouns. Rewrite the sentence to avoid language such as he/she and him or her (see p. 74). Use gender, not sex. Use sex for behavior.
Avoid slash construction in (a) simple and/or constructions (use a phrase instead); (b) for simple comparisons or items of equal weight (use a hyphen instead); and (c) more than once to express compound units (use centered dots and parentheses to avoid ambiguity). (See pp. 95 - 96.)
Tables
Construct tables in Microsoft Word. Place asterisks indicating p values in the same cell as the value they modify, use the decimal tab in the ruler to align decimals.
Consult our JMF table website for sample tables in PDF and in Word; the latter may be downloaded for use as a template. Delete all vertical and most horizontal lines as per the examples on the web. Double space all tables. However, if double-spacing means that a table requires two pages, and the table can be printed on one page with single-spacing; this is acceptable.
Craft brief but clear and explanatory table titles. Use title case (capitalize major words, all words of four or more letters, and both words of a hyphenated compound) and italicize.
65
Align headings and column entries. Align decimal points within columns (see our table website). Use separate columns for each item (e.g., standard errors). Use only two decimal places unless there is a compelling reason to provide three decimal places.
Except for statistical symbols, do not italicize column headings or variable names. Boldface is reserved for unique statistical symbols.
Tables should stand alone, without the need to go to the text for interpretation. Explain the meaning of scales, numbers, and variables with table notes or figure legends. If using acronyms or special punctuation, define them (e.g., YR = youth report; all bolded terms are weighted to U.S. norms). Include the N and ns in all tables.
Table notes:
o First level: General table notes, together in a first paragraph, are relevant to the table as a whole. No space between Note and :. Format is:
Note: All values are weighted. N = 230 couples.
Second level: Specific notes-together in a second paragraph-are used for
information relevant to a particular row, column, or cell entry. There is no space between the superscript and the cell entry and between the superscript and the note. Format is:
a1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree. bCenter for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale.
Third level: Probability notes-together in a third paragraph-indicate the results of tests of significance. Use asterisks only. Use periods to punctuate probability notes. No space between * and the cell entry and between * and p in the note. Italicize p. In the rare instance when it is appropriate, use a dagger (†) to indicate a trend as in †p < .10. * indicates the same p value from table to table within a paper. All p-value notes go on a single line. Insert spaces before and after <. Format is:
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Reference and Parenthetical Citations in Text (pp. 174 -179)
Citations in the text not enclosed in parentheses should list the date of the work in parentheses after the author's name, as in Jones (2002).
List parenthetical citations in alphabetical order (Benton & Mays, 1999, Results section, para. 3; Chan, 1998; Farmer, 1999a, 1999b; Jones, 1992, 1999; Jones, Armstrong, & Hayes, 2001; Zindel et al., 2001).
For a single work, use a comma between the author and the date (Jones, 1990). In parentheses, link authors' names with an ampersand (Bruce & Smith, 1996);
66
both & and and are preceded by a comma: Franz, Cox, Smythe, and Queen (1989) or (Franz, Cox, Smythe, & Queen, 1989).
List different publications by the same author in chronological order. Do not repeat the author's name (Bruce, 1990, 1992a). Commas separate the dates of different publications by the same author; semicolons separate that author's work from that of other authors' (Jones, 1990, 1987; Bruce, 2000).
Works by the same first author but different coauthors are alphabetized by the last name of the second (or, if necessary, later) author. (See p. 182.)
Once a work with three or more authors has been cited in full, subsequent citations should list the first author (no comma) followed by et (no period) al., (period and comma), as in (Smith et al., 1988); works with six or more authors follow this convention on first occurrence.
Cite a single page number using p. and multiple page numbers using pp. (e.g., Jones, 1992, pp. 10 - 12). Put a space between p. or pp. and the number.
Use commas to separate citation dates in parenthetical material (see Jones et al., 2001, for an example).
Reference List (pp.180-192)
Begin the reference list on a new page. Double space (and no more than double space) within and between all end references. Each new entry begins flush left; set subsequent lines with hanging indents using the ruler, no the Enter key and tabs, to create the indents.
Alphabetize entries in the same manner as within-text citations (above). The reference list includes all references and only those references cited in the
text.
Entries with multiple authors should include the names of all authors in the reference list.
Use authors' and editors' last names and first and second initials (Gutman, A. S., & Smith, R. T.) Initials appear before surnames only for editors (e.g., A. S. Gutman). Space between initials.
Italicize book titles, and the names and volume numbers of journals. Page numbers are required for book chapters. (See p. 204.)
If a source is available most readily online, provide a URL. Avoid using a period after a URL. For example: Kreider, R.M. (2003, October). Adopted children and stepchildren: 200. Census 2000 Special Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-6.pdf Where possible, include DOI's (digital object identifiers) in the reference list. For
example: Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 3-22. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x
Include state's postal code (e.g., DC not D.C.) or the country to avoid confusion or if the city is not well known for publishing: Cambridge, MA; Cambridge, UK. These U.S. cities can stand alone: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New
67
York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. These international cities can stand alone: Amsterdam, Jerusalem, London, Milan, Moscow, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Tokyo, and Vienna.
Give publishers in as brief a form as possible; remove The, Publishers, Co., or Inc., but retain Books and Press. For example, Basic Books, Blackwell, Erlbaum, Macmillan, Sage, Wiley.
Journal of Marriage and the Family prior to 2001; Journal of Marriage and Family from 2001 forward.
68
Article 1
69
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate family psychosocial well-being in a South African context. Research was conducted with youths at five secondary schools located in the Gauteng province and focused on the psychosocial well-being experienced in their families from diverse cultures. A cross-sectional survey design and a purposive, voluntary sampling technique was used. Participants included youths who fitted the selection criteria (N = 772). Data collection was done by means of the Family Functioning Style Scale, Family Hardiness Index, Family Satisfaction Scale, Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, and the McMaster Family Assessment Device. The results supported a two-factor model of family psychosocial well-being consisting of family functioning and family feelings. Family functioning included family relational patterns, family functioning style and family hardiness, while the second factor, family feelings, included family satisfaction and attachment.
Keywords: Attachment; family; family functioning; family functioning style; family
70
There is a wealth of academic and other types of information and research on the influence and importance of family life and well-being in various contexts. This is not surprising given that families play a prominent role in society and in every individual’s life. Research indicates that family life fulfils an essential role in the well-being of its members and also contributes to the well-being of its community (Caledon Institute of Social Policy, 2001; Peterson & Green, 2009). Family ties are a source of emotional support and security to its members and act as a powerful protective factor against risk behaviours, while promoting resilient coping during difficult times (Benard, 2002, 2004). Families, especially youths, without such a secure base for emotional development are at risk of problem behaviour and psychosocial dysfunction (Parritz & Troy, 2011). A recent research paper by the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) indicates that due to factors such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic and poverty, many South African families are in crisis (Holborn & Eddy, 2011).
It is hard to identify a definition that captures the essence of South African families given the unique blend of cultures and languages in the country. South African law does not refer to or identify a single definition for ‘family’, as the traditional nuclear family (a married man and woman and their children), which is referred to in South African law and Euro-American literature, does not reflect the current South African society (South African Law Commission, 2002). Moreover, the traditional landscape of the family structure is being replaced by an increasingly diverse family structure where single-parent families and extended family care arrangements are more common. This becomes clear from the statistics published by the South African Institute for Race Relations (Holborn & Eddy, 2011), indicating that the majority (43%) of all South African children live in single-parent households and 23% not with any of their biological parents. Possible results for youths of fractured families, although it is not the only variable that can impact family well-being, include educational difficulties, risky sexual behaviour, drug and alcohol abuse, mental health and self-perception problems, violent behaviour and suicidal tendencies (Holborn & Eddy, 2011), all indicative of compromised psychosocial health and well-being.
71
This study aims to investigate the psychosocial well-being experienced by young people within their family contexts, as indicative of the prevalence of psychosocial wellness of South African families from diverse cultures.
Literature searches via various academic search engines such as EbscoHost, Science Direct, Jstor, Juta and Google Scholar indicate that literature and research regarding the psychosocial well-being of families in South Africa is limited, and little is known about the functioning, hardiness, attachment and satisfaction of South African families. The significance of this study about the psychosocial wellness of families in South Africa lies in the fact that it will contribute to the knowledge base of social and family sciences with regard to the prevalence of aspects of psychosocial well-being in South African families such as family functioning, -hardiness, -attachment and -satisfaction. A measurement model to assess family psychosocial well-being could also be proposed. Currently there are no holistic measurement models in South Africa that specifically suit this purpose and the development of such a model may contribute to future research on the subject. The results of this research could be applied in counselling and prevention-oriented settings aimed at the promotion of family life and family wellness.
For the purpose of this research a research question that comes to mind is: What are the contributions of features of family life such as family functioning, attachment, family satisfaction and family hardiness to the psychosocial well-being of a family as a whole?
Psychosocial well-being
According to Diener and Lucas (1999), well-being includes physical, mental and social dimensions and can be defined as a broad state of health that also includes subjective well-being (the experience of more positive than negative affect, satisfaction with life and low neuroticism or mental stress). Well-being is regarded as a process as it includes all that is good for a person, such as a sound lifestyle and meaningful social roles, happiness and hope, good values, positive social relationships, coping abilities, and a sense of personal security (Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE), 2011).
72
Psychological being describes a much broader and more detailed context of well-being (Linley & Joseph, 2004), which refers to how one engages with life and its challenges (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002), personal growth and fulfilment (Linley & Joseph, 2004) and personal strengths and capabilities (Wissing & Van Eeden, 2002). Furthermore, the source of psychological well-being is the inherently intrinsic personal world of the individual (Linley & Joseph, 2004).
The term psychosocial refers to the integrated experience of psychological aspects (thoughts, emotions and behaviour) within social contexts (relationships, traditions, culture). Therefore psychosocial well-being refers to life experiences wherein psychological, emotional and social well-being is present in equal measures (Reber & Reber, 2001). According to the model of optimal mental health (Keyes, 2004, 2007), psychological, emotional and social well-being contribute equally to the mental health of people. Emotional well-being implies the experience of mostly positive emotions and feeling satisfied with life in general. Psychological well-being implies self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, autonomy, and positive relations with others, while social acceptance, actualisation, coherence, contribution, and integration are the features of social well-being or positive social functioning (Keyes, 2007). All or most of these characteristics in individuals are developed or thwarted in and by their family experiences (Carr, 2011; Compton, 2005; Parritz & Troy, 2011).
For the purpose of this study family psychosocial well-being is understood along the lines of the optimal mental health model of Keyes (2004, 2007), which emphasize psychological, emotional and social components and it is assumed that these components will manifest in family related features such as family functioning, family hardiness, attachment and family satisfaction. Furthermore, it would seem as if the family related features or dimensions of family life could be divided into those that represent the “functioning well” aspects of family life and those that represent the “feeling well” aspects of family life.
73 Functioning well
Family functioning reflects the effectiveness of a family’s activities and interactions and how these enable families to meet their goals, to support each other and to contribute to each other’s well-being (Walsh, 2003). In literature there are two models that describe the most salient aspects characterising family functioning: The model of Dunst, Trivette, and Deal (1988) views a family’s style of functioning as strengths-based and portraying the family’s shared identity, their manner of information sharing and how they mobilize their resources. The McMaster model of family functioning (Epstein, Ryan, Bishop, Miller, & Keitner, 1993) has a slightly different view on family functioning and states that problem solving, communication, appropriate role allocation, affective responsiveness, affective involvement and flexible behaviour control are six dimensions of family functioning. According to Miller, Ryan, Keitner, Bishop, and Epstein (2000), these dimensions are portrayed by the interactional patterns of the family system and influence the behaviour of family members, in other words one could also refer to these dimensions as the relational patterns within the family. The socio-economic status, culture, family structure and stages of development of families are reported to be some of the aspects that can influence family functioning (McCreary & Dancy, 2004). McCreary and Dancy also report that effective family functioning contributes to emotional nurturing, effective communication, doing things together, helping each other and appropriate parenting in families, all relational qualities that build psychosocial well-being.
Family hardiness proves to be a mediating strength between stressful situations and family adaptation, which includes control (the sense of control that a family has with regard to life events), challenge (the family’s ability to perceive change as an opportunity for growth), commitment (how actively oriented a family is toward adapting to stressful life events) and confidence (the family’s ability to show interest and find meaning in life experiences) (Ford-Gilboe & Cohen, 2000; McCubbin, McCubbin, & Thompson, 1991). Literature reports that positive correlates of family hardiness include psychological well-being of family members and positive family functioning, personal growth and self-efficacy of the family as a unit (Lian & Lin, 2010; Robitschek & Kashubeck, 1999).
74 Feeling well
Attachment is widely seen as a powerful determinant in the psychosocial well-being of people and is a basic feature of family life (Baumgardner & Crothers, 2009). Attachment is described as a strong affectional bond characterised by trust and belongingness between members of a family. Seligman (2002, p. 192) calls attachment the “working model” for relationships, and it is based on initial bonding with the mother or primary caregiver. Attachment theory’s basic premise is that people develop expectations with regard to relationships based on childhood bonding experiences that can become resistant to change later in their lives (Seligman, 2002; Tesser, 1995). Bowlby (1958, 1973) described four phases in attachment development: the pre-attachment phase (indiscriminate responsiveness to humans), the attachment-in-the-making phase (focusing on familiar people), the phase of “clear-cut” attachment (active proximity seeking) and the formation of a reciprocal relationship (partnership behaviour). The positive outcome of attachment is known as secure attachment, while the more problematic outcomes could vary between preoccupied, fearful-avoidant and dismissive-avoidant attachment styles that manifest in relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). According to Seligman (2002) people’s attitudes toward others, their goals in relationships and how they manage relational distress are all dictated by their attachment style.
Family satisfaction is defined as the family’s ability to act as a support system for family members in uncertain times and the degree to which members feel happy and fulfilled with other members of the family (Caprara, Pastorelli, Regalia, Scabini, & Bandura, 2005; Olson & Wilson, 1982). Olson and Wilson (1982) identify three dimensions of family satisfaction namely, cohesion, flexibility and communication. Family satisfaction has been reported to have an influence on developmental aspects such as individuation and differentiation of family members (Scabini, Lanz, & Marta, 1999), to correlate with the quality of the parent-child relationship (Belsky, Jaffee, Hsieh, & Silva, 2001) and with perceived self-worth among family members (Gilman, 2001). Family satisfaction is also reported to have positive correlations with subjective well-being, positive family interactions and healthy interpersonal relationships within the family (Campbell, 1981;
75
Krahn, Gartrell, & Larson, 1981; Mills, Grasmick, Stout Morgan, & Wenk, 1992), aspects that would promote the psychosocial wellness of family members.
Hypotheses
Psychosocial well-being, a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon, is used as the overarching concept in this study. The constructs discussed above namely, family functioning (which includes the family’s style of functioning as well as interactive or relational patterns within the family), family hardiness, attachment and family satisfaction were used to measure family psychosocial well-being. These constructs are identified in research and literature as precursors of family strengths that could play a part in, or contribute to family psychosocial well-being. It can therefore be tentatively assumed that these constructs are interrelated and complimentary, thereby influencing each other and impacting on family psychosocial well-being as a whole.
As mentioned before, the Keyes (2004, 2007) model of mental health in which psychological, emotional and social well-being contribute equally to the mental health of people will be used in this study to organise the family related features into a construct of family psychosocial well-being. Hypothetically, the constructs used in this study to measure family psychosocial well-being could correspond to Keyes’ dimensions and be presented as a one-factor or multi-factored model wherein the constructs are identified under the dimensions of psychological, emotional, and social well-being.
In line with the argument for a multi-factored model of family psycho-social well-being made up of psychological, emotional and social well-being components, the following could be hypothetically assumed: Family functioning, consisting of family functioning style (the family’s identity, information sharing and resource mobilization) and family relational patterns (problem solving, communication, role allocation, affective responsiveness and involvement and flexible behaviour control), reflects the structure and organization of the family and influences all interactions within the system. Family functioning therefore contributes to the psychological and the social well-being
76
components of the Keyes-model. Family hardiness (control, challenge and commitment), which refers to the family’s ability to manage life’s challenges and stress, contributes to the psychological well-being component of the Keyes-model. Attachment (trust and the absence of anger and alienation), is theoretically known as a powerful affectional bond providing emotional security to the individual. However, it is based on a relationship and also forms the basis of all subsequent close relationships. Therefore, attachment contributes primarily to the emotional well-being component of the Keyes-model and also underpins the social well-being component. Family satisfaction (cohesion and adaptability) depicts the subjective experience of family members of mutual support, closeness and satisfaction or happiness and thus contributes to the emotional well-being component of the Keyes-model (Keyes, 2004, 2007).
Based on the preceding argument, hypothetically, the following measurement models could be considered: It could be argued that attachment has a determining influence on people’s social well-being because of its internal models of relational security or lack thereof and its association with the quality of relationships and expectations with regard to relationships (Bowlby, 1958, 1973; Seligman, 2002; Tesser, 1995). Attachment could therefore theoretically be a separate factor resulting in a three-factor model consisting of family functioning (family relational patterns, family functioning style and family hardiness), family feelings (family satisfaction) and attachment.
Furthermore, family functioning style and family relational patterns theoretically fit together in assessing family functioning and related aspects namely the effectiveness of a family’s activities and interactions and how it enables families to meet their goals, support each other and contribute to each other’s well-being (Walsh, 2003). Family relational patterns and family functioning style could therefore theoretically be combined as one factor (family functioning) while the factors of attachment, family satisfaction and family hardiness are kept separate, resulting in a four-factor model.
Alternatively, positive family functioning, attachment, family satisfaction and family hardiness are reported as family strengths (Bowlby, 1973; Caprara, Pastorelli, Regalia,
77
Scabini, & Bandura, 2005; Epstein et al., 1993; McCubbin, McCubbin, & Thompson, 1991; Walsh, 2003). Therefore, the various factors could be viewed as conceptually sharing enough aspects to constitute one factor in which the family relational patterns and family functioning style, family hardiness, attachment and family satisfaction are combined into one factor, namely family psychosocial well-being.
In view of the fact that very limited research and information is available on the psychosocial well-being of South African families from diverse cultures, the general aim of this study was to investigate the psychosocial well-being of a group of South African families. The following hypothesis is proposed for this study:
Hypothesis
Family well-being consists of two dimensions, namely family functioning (i.e. family relational patterns, family functioning style and family hardiness), and family feelings (i.e. attachment and family satisfaction). These two factors (family functioning and family feelings) are positively related.
Method
Research design
A quantitative research design was used for the purpose of this study (Brink, Van der Walt, & Van Rensburg, 2006). A cross-sectional survey design using validated psychological instruments was employed to determine the prevalence of psychosocial well-being in families, to identify families who manifested high, moderate and low levels of psychosocial well-being, and to develop a measurement model for the psychosocial well-being of families.
78
Participants and setting
A voluntary, all-inclusive, non-discriminatory sampling of youths attending five secondary schools in the Gauteng province of South Africa was conducted. The schools were selected on a basis of convenience and learners in the schools were all informed about the research by teachers and requested to volunteer for participation, with 772 responding (N = 772). The setting for completion of questionnaires was the school that the participating youths attended. The participants represented families from diverse cultures and socio-economic statuses, were willing to participate voluntarily and had to have written consent from their parents/caregivers. They also had to be able to communicate in English or Afrikaans. The characteristics of the participants are reported in Table 1.
Table 1
Characteristics of the Participants (N=772)
Item Category Frequency Percentage
Gender Male Female Unknown 269 495 8 34.8 64.1 1.0 Ethnicity White African Coloured Indian Unknown 191 511 47 18 5 24.7 66.6 6.1 2.3 .6 Age 13 years 14 years 15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years 19 years Unknown 44 143 166 140 165 97 13 4 5.7 18.5 21.5 18.1 21.4 12.6 1.7 .5 Measuring instruments
Data were collected by means of the following validated psychological measuring instruments completed by these youths:
79
The Family Functioning Style Scale (FFS; Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1988) is a family-centred assessment that specifically measures the positive aspects of family functioning or family strengths (Trivette, Dunst, Deal, Hamby, & Sexton, 1994). The FFS consists of 26 items and the scale covers 3 domains, namely: family identity, information sharing and resource mobilization. Example items include: “In our family, we try not to take one another for granted” and “No matter what happens in our family, we try to look at the bright side of things”. The items are rated on a 5 point Likert-type scale from “not at all like my family” to “almost always like my family”. The FFS can be used as both an assessment tool and an outcome measure (Early, 2001). The total score range is from 26-130. Higher scores indicate good family strengths and sound family functioning (McGrath & Sullivan, 1999; Trivette et al., 1994). The split-half reliability coefficient for the scale is 0.85, and the average correlation among the items 0.92. No evidence could be found that this scale has been used in South African studies. Permission to use the scale was requested from and given by Winterberry Press.
The Family Hardiness Index (FHI; McCubbin, McCubbin, & Thompson, 1991) measures the internal strengths and durability of a family. The scale consists of 20 items with three subscales: commitment, challenge, and control. Sample items include: “Life seems dull and meaningless” and “We strive together and help each other no matter what”. The items are arranged along a 5-point Likert-type scale and respondents rate their satisfaction on each item ranging from false, mostly false, mostly true, true, and not applicable. The scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82 (McCubbin, et al., 1991). The scale has been used in South African studies, such as “Bouncing forward: Families living with a type 1 diabetic child” by Brown, Fouché, and Coetzee (2010) and “Variables associated with resilience in divorced families” by Greeff and Van der Merwe (2004). The questionnaire is currently in the public domain.
The Family Satisfaction Scale (FSS; Olson & Wilson, 1982) assesses family satisfaction on the dimensions of family cohesion and family adaptability. The scale consists of 14 items, for example “How satisfied are you with how close you feel to the rest of your family?” and “How satisfied are you with the number of fun things your family does
80
together?” The items are arranged along a 5-point Likert-type scale and respondents rate their satisfaction on each item, with 1 = dissatisfied, 2 = somewhat dissatisfied, 3 = generally satisfied, 4 = very satisfied and 5 = extremely satisfied. The scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94 (12 months, N = 541) and 0. 95 (60 months, N = 340) and the five-week test-retest correlation for the total score of the Family Satisfaction Scale was 0.75 (Olson & Wilson, 1982). The scale has been used in South African studies, such as “Recent stressors and family satisfaction in suicidal adolescents in South Africa” by Pillay and Wassenaar (1997), “The family process of high school underachievers” by Roux (1997), and “The parent-adolescent relationship and the emotional well-being of adolescents” by Koen (2009). Permission to use this scale was requested from and given by the authors.
The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) assesses adolescents’ trust of, anger toward or emotional detachment from their parents and peers. The subscales include aspects of trust and communication (together seen as trust) as well as alienation, anger and isolation (together seen as attachment-anger). For the purpose of this study only the parent attachment inventory with the subscales of attachment-trust and attachment-anger was used. The scale consists of 28 items, for example: “My parents accept me as I am” and “I feel that no one understands me”. Respondents indicate how often each statement is true for them on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Response categories include never true, seldom true, sometimes true, often true and always true. The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment showed three-week test-retest reliabilities of 0.93 for the parent attachment measure and good reliability and validity were found (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The scale has been used in South African studies, such as “An exploration of father-child relationships, current attachment styles and self-esteem amongst adults” by Williams (2006) and “The parent-adolescent relationship and the emotional well-being of adolescents” by Koen (2009). The questionnaire is currently in the public domain.
The McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD; Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983) has seven subscales measuring the following dimensions of family functioning: Problem
81
solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behaviour control and general functioning. The scale consists of 60 items rated by a 4 point Likert-type response format. Example items include: “When someone is upset the others know why” and “We resolve most emotional upsets that come up”. A smaller score indicates better family functioning whereas higher scores are indicative of poorer family functioning. These scales have shown good internal consistency (alphas ranging from 0.71 to 0.92) and one-week test-retest reliability (0.66 to 0.76). This scale has been used in a South African study, namely “The relationship between family-of-origin and marital satisfaction” by Botha, Van den Berg, and Venter (2009). Permission to use the questionnaire is given by the authors in the publication: “Evaluating and treating families: The McMaster Approach” (Ryan, Epstein, Keitner, Miller, & Bishop, 2005).
A biographical questionnaire was included to obtain socio-demographic information on the participants and their families. A pilot study was done with youths outside of the research sample who also fit the selection criteria in order to ensure that the questionnaires were user-friendly, easy to understand and to determine the approximate time it took to complete the questionnaires. Feedback about the questionnaires was positive and it took approximately 30 – 45 minutes to complete. Reliability indices for the five scales ranged from 0.89 to 0.97 for the pilot group.
Research procedure
Written, informed consent was obtained from all the role players and the participants, including the Department of Education and principals of the different schools. This entailed visits to the principals of the schools with letters to explain the nature of the study and to obtain approval for the research to be conducted in the school. The researcher made appointments with participants to explain the objectives of the research and what their participation would entail, as well as to get their assent and consent from their parents/caregivers. The questionnaires, bound in a booklet, were administered by the researcher who is a registered psychological counsellor and intern research psychologist.
82
Selected and trained teachers assisted in the process. The questionnaires were in English, which required a level 8 proficiency in English.
Data analysis
Data were captured and statistically analysed utilising the PASW 18.0 program (PASW, 2010). Descriptive statistics, reliability indices, and Pearson correlations between measuring instruments were determined. Structural equation modeling (SEM) methods implemented in AMOS (Arbuckle, 2009) were used to test the measurement models. Absolute fit indices (Chi-square statistic, Standardised Root Mean Residual (SRMR), and Root-Means-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)), incremental fit indices (Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI)) and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) (refer to Hair, Black, Babin, & Andersen, 2010) were determined and reported in this study. A TLI and CFI value above 0.90 is seen as acceptable, whilst a RMSEA value lower than 0.05 and SRMR value lower than 0.08 are indicative of a close fit between the model and data. Lower AIC and BIC values are indicative of less complexity in a model.
Ethical considerations
The researcher made use of various international ethical principles, such as those stated in the Helsinki declaration (Burns & Grove, 2005) in order to conduct the research in an ethical manner. The researcher considered certain ethical issues in order to ensure that the rights of participants were observed, namely: anonymity, respect for the dignity of persons, non-maleficence and confidentiality (Terre Blanche, Durrheim, & Painter, 2006). Participation was voluntary and anonymous and participants were able to withdraw at any stage if they so wished without any penalty. Permission was also obtained from the Ethical Committee of the North-West University (NWU-00069-11-A9). The researcher made provision for single session counselling services to participants who experienced emotional discomfort due to the nature of this research or their participation therein. The researcher was not personally involved in such sessions.
83
Results
The results indicate participants’ rating of aspects of family psychosocial well-being experienced in their families. The descriptive statistics, alpha coefficients, correlations between measuring instruments and communalities of the measuring instruments after adapting the measurement model are reported in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
84 Table 2
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Indices and Pearson Correlations of the Scales (N=772)
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FFS Total 2.89 0.84 0.89 1. FFS family identity 2.89 0.99 0.76 2. FFS information sharing 2.66 0.95 0.71 0.71*++ 3. FFS resource mobilization 3.11 0.88 0.81 0.72*++ 0.67*++ FHI Total 1.99 0.58 0.75 4. FHI commitment 2.16 0.78 0.76 0.63*++ 0.59*++ 0.64*++ 5. FHI challenge 2.09 0.79 0.69 0.57*++ 0.53*++ 0.57*++ 0.69*++ 6. FHI control 1.80 0.76 0.55 0.17* 0.12* 0.20* 0.20* 0.21* FSS Total 2.89 0.84 0.85 7. FSS coherence 3.34 1.09 0.77 0.69*++ 0.66*++ 0.64*++ 0.60*++ 0.58*++ 0.23* 8. FSS adaptability 3.45 0.94 0.70 0.63*++ 0.66*++ 0.62*++ 0.58*++ 0.52*++ 0.18* 0.75*++ IPPA Total 3.34 0.98 0.82 9. IPPA trust 3.53 1.10 0.80 0.63*++ 0.66*++ 0.59*++ 0.60*++ 0.53*++ 0.18* 0.69*++ 0.68*++ 10. IPPA anger 3.14 1.10 0.71 0.48*+ 0.48*+ 0.42*+ 0.44*+ 0.39*+ 0.21* 0.53*++ 0.54*++ 0.59*++ 11. FAD total 2.13 0.50 0.72 0.56*++ 0.51*++ 0.56*++ 0.57*++ 0.51*++ 0.32*+ 0.55*++ 0.51*++ 0.55*++ 0.42*+ *
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) + Medium effect size (r ˃ 0.30)
85
The results in Table 2 show that most of the scales had acceptable alpha coefficients (> 0.70) according to the criteria of Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). According to the criteria of Bowling (1997), the lower alpha coefficients for the FHI control and challenge subscales (0.55 and 0.69 respectively) were acceptable in research of this nature. Means and standard deviations reported here correspond well to those found in literature. The correlations between the subscales are all significant at p<0.01. There were also significant positive correlations between the FFS, FAD and two of the FHI subscales (0.51 and higher) and between the FSS and IPPA subscales (0.53 and higher), supporting the hypothesis of a two-factor model. The FHI control subscale had the lowest correlations with the other subscales ranging from 0.18 to 0.31. The practical effect size for the various subscales are also indicated in Table 2, showing either a medium or large effect size according to the criteria of Cohen (1977).
Not shown in Table 2 are the percentages of participants who reported low, low to moderate, moderate, moderate to high and high family psychosocial well-being. The percentages were as follows: low: 17.2%, low to moderate: 24.6%, moderate: 22.5%, moderate to high: 15.2% and high: 20.5%. The findings show a rather small group of participants who report high levels of family psychosocial well-being, while the majority falls within the low and moderate ranges, indicating that approximately 64% of the participants are not experiencing optimal psychosocial well-being. Table 3 provides the communalities (R2) for the various items:
86 Table 3
Communalities of the Subscales and Items (N=772)
Variable R2
1. FFS family identity (Family functioning style: family identity) Item 6. No matter how difficult things get, our family sticks together. Item 12. Even in our busy schedules, we find time to be together. Item 16. We enjoy time together even if it is just doing household chores.
.96 .47 .59 .50 2. FFS information sharing (Family functioning style: information sharing)
Item 5.We are able to share our concerns and feelings in productive ways. Item 13. Everyone in our family understands the rules about acceptable ways to act.
Item 18.Whenever we have disagreements, family members listen to “both sides of the story”.
.97 .59 .37 .38 3. FFS resource mobilization (Family functioning style: resource mobilization)
Item 9. In our family we are always willing to “pitch in” and help one another.
Item 20. In our family, we can depend upon the support of one another whenever something goes wrong. Item 24. We can depend upon one another to help out when something unexpected comes up.
.83 .56 .66 .55 4. FHI commitment (Family hardiness: commitment)
Item 11. We strive together & help each other no matter what. Item 13. We listen to each other’s problems, hurts & fears. Item 18. We work together to solve problems.
.96 .49 .55 .55 5. FHI challenge (Family hardiness: challenge)
Item 12. When our family plans activities we try new & exciting things. Item 15. We seem to encourage each other to try new things & experiences. Item 17. Being active & learning new things are encouraged.
.90 .51 .46 .33 6. FHI control (Family hardiness: control)
Item 2. It is not wise to plan ahead & hope because things do not turn out anyway. Item 3. Our work & efforts are not appreciated no matter how hard we try & work. Item 19. Most of the unhappy things that happen are due to bad luck.
Item 20. We realize our lives are controlled by accidents & luck.
.16 .19 .36 .18 .21 7. FSS coherence (Family satisfaction: coherence)
Item 3. How satisfied are you with your family’s ability to try new things?
Item 13. How satisfied are you with how often you make decisions as a family, rather than individually? Item 14. How satisfied are you with the number of fun things your family does together?
.48 .53 .61 8. FSS adaptability (Family satisfaction: adaptability)
Item 2. How satisfied are you with your ability to say what you want in your family? Item 8. How satisfied are you with the way you talk together to solve family problems? Item 12. How satisfied are you with how clear it is what your family expects of you?
.42 .60 .34 9. IPPA trust (Attachment trust)
Item 16. My parents help me to understand myself better. Item 21.My parents understand me.
Item 23. When I am angry about something, my parents try to be understanding.
.96 .56 .63 .55 10. IPPA anger (Attachment anger)
Item 11. I get upset easily at home.
Item 12. I get upset a lot more than my parents know about.
Item 25. My parents don’t understand what I’m going through these days.
.59 .49 .54 .37 11. FAD total (Family relational patterns)
Item 7. We don't know what to do when an emergency comes up. Item 22. It is difficult to talk to each other about tender feelings. Item 28. We do not show our love for each other.
Item 33. We get involved with each other only when something interests us. Item 34.There is little time to explore personal interests.
Item 60. We try to think of different ways to solve problems.
.12 .43 .37 .27 .35 .30
Problematic items in subscales that were identified from communalities include items 2, 19 and 20 of the FHI control subscale and item 7 of the FAD. With three out of four items of the FHI control subscale indicating a low R2, the findings suggest that the FHI control subscale did not extract a substantial percentage of the variance in the items. The reason for the low variance extracted by these items is not clear, but it is speculated that the formulation or wording of these items in the FHI and FAD could have been perceived as confusing or vague by the participants in the study due to possible limited proficiency in English even though it
87
was communicated and explained to participants that proficiency in English was one of the criteria that participants had to meet to partake in the research.
Testing the measurement model
Structural equation modelling (SEM) methods, as implemented by AMOS (Arbuckle, 2009), were used to test the measurement model. Global assessments of model fit were based on several goodness-of-fit statistics (CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR, AIC, and BIC).
Measurement models
The following measurement models were tested:
Model 1: A two-factor model of psychosocial well-being consisting of two first-order latent factors, namely: family functioning that has three second-order variables, namely family relational patterns (6 items), family functioning style with three third-order variables (family identity, information sharing and resource mobilisation) and their nine items, and family hardiness with three third-order variables (commitment, challenge and control) and their ten items; family feelings that has two second-order variables, namely attachment with two third-order variables (trust and anger) and their six items and family satisfaction (6 items).
Model 2: A one-factor model of psychosocial well-being including one first-order latent variable (family psychosocial well-being) and five second-order latent variables, namely family relational patterns (6 items) and family functioning style (9 items), family hardiness (10 items), attachment (6 items) and family satisfaction (6 items).
Model 3: A three-factor model of psychosocial well-being consisting of three first-order latent factors, namely: family functioning that has three second-order variables, namely family relational patterns (6 items), family functioning style with three third-order variables (family identity, information sharing and resource mobilisation) and their nine items, and family hardiness with three third-order variables (commitment, challenge and control) and their ten items; attachment (6 items) and family feelings (6 items).
Model 4: A four-factor model of psychosocial well-being consisting of four first-order latent variables, namely: family functioning has two second-order latent variables, namely family relational patterns (6 items) and family functioning style with three third-order
88
variables (family identity, information sharing and resource mobilization) and their nine items; family hardiness with three second-order factors, namely commitment (3 items), challenge (3 items) and control (4 items); attachment consists of two second-order factors, namely trust (3 items) and anger (3 items); family satisfaction consists of six items.
Table 4 presents fit indices for testing of the various models.
Table 4
Fit Indices of Competing Measurement Models (N=772)
Model 2 df TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR AIC BIC
Model 1 1423.22 615 0.93 0.93 0.04 0.05 1599.22 2008.326 Model 2 1766.66 624 0.90 0.91 0.05 0.05 1924.66 2291.93 Model 3 1607.69 623 0.91 0.92 0.05 0.06 1767.69 2139.61 Model 4 1501.05 621 0.92 0.93 0.04 0.06 1665.05 2046.26
2
= Chi-square; df = Degrees of Freedom; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root-Means-Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardised Root Mean Residual; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.
Comparison of the fit indices indicates that Model 1 fitted the data best. The other three models showed a somewhat poorer fit to the data. Table 4 shows that a 2 value of 1423.22 (df = 615) was obtained for Model 1, which was used as a baseline model to determine whether the other three models had a significant statistical improvement. The following changes in chi-square (2) were found when the competing models were compared: Models 1 and 2 (2 = 343.44, df = 9, p < 0.00); Models 1 and 3 (2 = 184.47, df = 8, p < 0.00); and Models 1 and 4 (2 = 77.83, df = 6, p < 0.00). Model 1 also had the lowest AIC and BIC values, indicating that Model 1 had the lowest level of complexity. These results show that Model 1 was statistically more significant with regard to data fit than the other three models.
89
The first model hypothesized that the constructs used to measure family psychosocial well-being could be presented as two factors, namely: a family functioning factor of psychological and social well-being, including family relational patterns, family functioning style and family hardiness; a family feelings factor of emotional well-being, including the attachment and family satisfaction constructs. It was hypothesized that the factors family functioning and family feelings would correlate significantly positively with each other as factors of family psychosocial well-being. It was assumed that the errors of items are uncorrelated. The model had 703 distinct sample moments, 88 distinct parameters to be estimated, and 615 degrees of freedom.
Evaluating the proposed model
Figure 1 shows the standardised path coefficients estimated by AMOS for the proposed theoretical model.
90
91 Model 1
Family functioning had a significant positive correlation with family feelings (0.95). The paths from respectively family functioning to family relational patterns (0.82), family functioning style (0.88) and family hardiness (0.96) and from family feelings to family satisfaction (0.97) and attachment (0.93) were all significantly positive. All paths were statistically significant. These findings provide support for hypothesis 1.
Model 2
Family psychosocial well-being had a significant positive relation with the second-order latent variables namely, family relational patterns (0.82), family functioning style (0.94), family hardiness (0.87), attachment (0.89) and family satisfaction (0.94). The most significant paths were between family psychosocial well-being and family functioning style and family satisfaction respectively. All paths were statistically significant.
Model 3
Family functioning had a significant positive correlation with family feelings (0.92) and attachment (0.86). Attachment and family feelings also had a significant positive correlation (0.88). All paths were statistically significant.
Model 4
All path coefficients were significant. Family functioning had a significant positive correlation with family hardiness (0.91), attachment (0.90) and family satisfaction (0.94). Attachment had a significant positive correlation with family hardiness (0.77) and family satisfaction (0.90). Family hardiness and family satisfaction also had a significant positive correlation (0.79). The most significant paths were between family functioning and family satisfaction and family hardiness respectively.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate the psychosocial well-being of a group of South African families by determining the prevalence of psychosocial well-being in families from diverse cultures in a South African context by means of validated questionnaires completed by youth as representatives of these families; by identifying families who report high, moderate and low levels of psychosocial well-being for inclusion in further research; and by
92 proposing a measurement model for family psychosocial well-being in a South African context. The results indicate that the scales and subscales used to measure the psychosocial well-being of families in this study had acceptable to high reliability indices. Means and standard deviations found corresponded to those reported in the literature and obtained from comparable research samples. The positive correlations (with medium to large practical effect) among scales and subscales were all significant at the p<0.01 level, suggesting that the underlying constructs of these scales have aspects in common on an empirical level that could, for the purpose of this study, be conceptualised as family psychosocial well-being. Such conceptual coherence or interconnection suggests the hypothesis of a one-factor measurement model. However, the possibility of a multi-factor model is not excluded.
The prevalence findings for family psychosocial well-being in these youths as representatives of their families indicate that only a small group (35.7 %) manifest family psychosocial well-being, while 64.3% report low to moderate scores of family psychosocial well-being. These results are in line with a recent report issued by the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), which documents the extent of family breakdown and the difficulties that current South African families are facing (Holborn & Eddy, 2011). The findings further correspond somewhat to studies by Van Schalkwyk (2009) and Keyes (2006) respectively. In a South African study on adolescents, Van Schalkwyk (2009) reported that 42% of participants were flourishing, 53% were moderately mentally healthy and 5% languishing, indicating that approximately 60% of the participants were not experiencing psychological-, emotional- and social well-being. In a study related to the mental health of adolescents in America, Keyes (2006) reported that 38% were flourishing, 56% were moderately mentally healthy and 6% were languishing, also indicating that approximately 62% were not manifesting psychological-, emotional- and social wellness.
The question comes to mind whether the fairly low levels of family psychosocial well-being reported by the majority of the youths in this study is a true reflection of their experience of family life, or whether their challenging developmental phase, namely adolescence, could have contributed to their responses on these questionnaires? This question is inspired by the interesting work of Call and Mortimer (2001) on arenas of comfort in adolescence and their finding for example, that about 58% of adolescents express relative satisfaction with themselves in relation to their mother and about 34% in relation to their father. According to Laursen and Bukowski (1997, p.763) there is an impetus for change in relationships with
93 parents and the family, driven by the adolescent in moving from “a state of being dependent, passive, and relatively asexual to a state of being responsible, assertive, and capable of sexuality”, and this results in a decrease in relationship warmth and an increase in conflict, not necessarily of a serious nature (Arnett, 1999). Further qualitative research could shed light on this matter.
The results provide support for an integrated, multi-dimensional two-factor model of family psychosocial well-being consisting of family functioning and family feelings. The family functioning factor includes family relational patterns, family functioning style and family hardiness, while the family feelings factor includes family satisfaction and attachment. This measurement model of family psychosocial well-being conceptualises a possible construct that describes families that are psychosocially well, as: Families with sound family functioning since they make use of problem solving, communication, role allocation, affective involvement and responsiveness, and flexible behaviour control as systemic relational patterns (FAD), they have a unique family identity in which they share information and mobilize resources (FFS) and they have a sense of control over life events, are challenged by and committed to deal with these events, and have confidence that they can succeed (FHI); families that have a shared base of family feelings that brings about a sense of bonding (cohesion), openness (flexibility) and interaction (FSS), and provides emotional security, trust and belongingness (attachment trust), with an absence of isolation, anger and alienation (attachment anger) (IPPA). The family’s functions and feelings are interrelated (0.95 in the model) and both contribute to and strengthen the experience of psychosocial well-being.
The hypothesized measurement model for family psychosocial well-being described above shows some agreement with the Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response (FAAR) framework of McCubbin and Patterson (1983), which indicates family typologies (core family patterns of functioning) that determine family adjustment and adaptation to life’s challenges. Two such typologies are: regenerative family systems, with core strengths in hardiness and coherence (family functioning) and versatile family systems, with core strengths in bonding and flexibility (family feelings). McCubbin, McCubbin, and Thompson (1996) also developed the Family Resiliency Model in which they postulate that families that have emotional interaction and relatedness (family feelings) and clear family structure and function (family functioning), among others things, will achieve the balance and harmony in family life that underpins resilience. In McCubbin and McCubbin (2005) the healthy family’s
